Re: Cleaning up historical portability baggage

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Cleaning up historical portability baggage
Date: 2022-07-23 23:24:26
Message-ID: CA+hUKGJSqeMby0WwE_E6_3X91OzSZu4a=YSEzoVB42tdE4HBjg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 11:11 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Some of these depend on SUSv2 options (not just "base"), but we
> > already do that (fsync, ...) and they're all features that are by now
> > ubiquitous, which means the fallback code is untested and the probes
> > are pointless.
>
> Reading this, it occurred to me that it'd be interesting to scrape
> all of the latest configure results from the buildfarm, and see which
> tests actually produce more than one answer among the set of tested
> platforms. Those that don't could be targets for further simplification,
> or else an indicator that we'd better go find some more animals.
>
> Before I go off and do that, though, I wonder if you already did.

Yeah, here are the macros I scraped yesterday, considering the latest
results from machines that did something in the past week.

Attachment Content-Type Size
scrape.sql.gz application/gzip 106.6 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zhihong Yu 2022-07-23 23:44:58 redacting password in SQL statement in server log
Previous Message Tom Lane 2022-07-23 23:11:12 Re: Cleaning up historical portability baggage